MISTRIAL - Sidney Moorer on trial for the kidnapping of Heather Elvis #5

[Dylgem22]

Oh, and Longbeards has inexpensive drinks lol. (Hey, while being surreptitious I had to pretend to be a bar customer :biggrin: ) $3.00 for a vodka tonic in a ball jar! Wow! Where I come from that drink would cost $7.00.

View attachment 97554

O/T

I am from the ATL area and that IS a great price for drinks! I am heading to the MB area in a few weeks myself and will try to stop in there just for the drinks haha

 

[atthelake]

O/T

I am from the ATL area and that IS a great price for drinks! I am heading to the MB area in a few weeks myself and will try to stop in there just for the drinks haha

Atlanta area also!

:wave:

Signed...ATL :biggrin:

 

[poppygirl]

I respectfully disagree. I think that jury was letting OJ off, regardless of evidence. I recently watched ESPN's "OJ: Made in America," where a juror finally confirmed the rumor that the jury's verdict was payback for Rodney King. :twocents:

I think by OJ, TTF14 was referring to obstruction of justice charge on Sidney. I had to read it twice too lol. I always think of 'THE' OJ lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jillycat]

In this recent article, it says, "Livesay said the text messages and calls between their two phones showed Moorer was definitely trying to lure Elvis away.'

What text messages were there that showed SM definitely lured Heather away? Don't recall reading them during the trial.

From the article:

“There were so many what ifs,” he said. “What if this happened? What if that happened? Things of that nature. Even though the state was saying that there was a possibility of him being there, of him doing this, there was no concrete evidence of the fact it happened. We were questioning in our own mind: ‘It could have been somebody else.’We didn’t do the what ifs.”

So he/they had doubt as to whether or not he was the driver of the truck and was at PTL, as opposed to sitting around imagining scenarios.

I'd like to know more about the texts and how they add to the "definitely trying to lure" scheme. Presumably this would also benefit the state's case in a re-trial.

 

[TTF14]

I think by OJ, TTF14 was referring to obstruction of justice charge on Sidney. I had to read it twice too lol. I always think of 'THE' OJ lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hahaha! Omg, me too, but I still used OJ. Let's use OOJ from now on!

 

[LBDunes]

From the article:

“There were so many what ifs,” he said. “What if this happened? What if that happened? Things of that nature. Even though the state was saying that there was a possibility of him being there, of him doing this, there was no concrete evidence of the fact it happened. We were questioning in our own mind: ‘It could have been somebody else.’We didn’t do the what ifs.”

So he/they had doubt as to whether or not he was the driver of the truck and was at PTL, as opposed to sitting around imagining scenarios.

I'd like to know more about the texts and how they add to the "definitely trying to lure" scheme. Presumably this would also benefit the state's case in a re-trial.

BBM - I don't understand "there were so many what ifs", "We didn’t do the what ifs". That sounds all over the place to me?

 

[Cortne]

BBM - I don't understand "there were so many what ifs", "We didn’t do the what ifs". That sounds all over the place to me?

Indeed.:thinking:

 

[jillycat]

BBM - I don't understand "there were so many what ifs", "We didn’t do the what ifs". That sounds all over the place to me?

I know. I think there's no way to understand their line of thinking without a fuller interview or having been there.

It sounds like they thought there were any number of other scenarios, but they didn't discuss them or go through them all. Maybe just concluded that in the mix were lots of possibilities but given the lack of harder proof, the bottom line was they couldn't for sure place him there. But I can only guess.

I really do think that the lure issue gets in the way. I think the state offered it because the claim that she was kidnapped and killed at the landing was lacking, so the kidnapping theory was expanded to include luring. They have proof of a call. They have no proof of a crime where they say the crime happened. I think that backfired, particularly when time passed, Heather herself then initiated a call, and no one can really say who intercepted it or drove to PTL, or, if PTL was was where the driver ended up. I understand that PTL was reasonably the destination, but with no physical evidence of anything as a result of a PTL meeting, I can see how things don't fully come together for all jurors instructed to find NG if there is any reasonable doubt when lining up evidence and the charge. If the state is hung up on a particular state of mind of both the defendant and the victim, and kidnapping hangs on luring mentality, I think Heather's Longbeard's trip also gets in the way. It seems implausible to me that SM was on a committed luring mission when it appears he gave up so easily and didn't seem to give Heather a clear route to getting in touch with him if she changed her mind. She drove around, called the wrong phone 4 times, then called the cell after a trip elsewhere and a return to her condo, and then rushed off.

And now there are supposedly text messages? I would think that would be frosting on the state's cake, so where are they and what did they say?

 

[TTF14]

I'm watching a new show on the OWN network called Greenleaf. On the second episode now, and about 18 minutes in there's a new character introduced that looks like SM (without the facial hair). Creepy. I think his character is gay and not into 20 year old female hotties, though.

 

[Surfside]

I think by OJ, TTF14 was referring to obstruction of justice charge on Sidney. I had to read it twice too lol. I always think of 'THE' OJ lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OMG, duh! My bad, TTF14. Haha!

I have the same problem with "HE," which is one of the reasons I always try to type out "Heather." My brain reads "HE" as the subjective pronoun for whatever male is being referenced.

 

[TTF14]

OMG, duh! My bad, TTF14. Haha!

I have the same problem with "HE," which is one of the reasons I always try to type out "Heather." My brain reads "HE" as the subjective pronoun for whatever male is being referenced.

Yup, me too!

 

[Madeleine74]

Aside from the "what if" someone else was driving the truck:

The charge of kidnapping applies even if all SM did was make the call to entice or persuade Heather to come out that night. Under the law he would still be guilty, even if someone else took his truck and went to get Heather. "Acting in concert" is what they call it in my state but it's referred to as "Hand of one, hand of all" in SC.

So if the jury didn't understand that distinction, which I think is an important one, they missed the boat on that.

 

[LBDunes]

And now there are supposedly text messages? I would think that would be frosting on the state's cake, so where are they and what did they say?

I think if the text messages were pertinent to the state's narrative they would have presented them. There was a lot of data evidence and a good number of witnesses. Given that there is more evidence that we are aware of from the info in the press I think there was a consensus in the prosecutor's office of what to use and what not to use. The state put together their narrative and I am sure they used everything available that they felt would support it.

 

[barcode]

Aside from the "what if" someone else was driving the truck:

The charge of kidnapping applies even if all SM did was make the call to entice or persuade Heather to come out that night. Under the law he would still be guilty, even if someone else took his truck and went to get Heather. "Acting in concert" is what they call it in my state but it's referred to as "Hand of one, hand of all" in SC.

So if the jury didn't understand that distinction, which I think is an important one, they missed the boat on that.

Yeah but it goes away just as easily if all he wanted was to invite her to meet him and everything goes south from there.

 

[jillycat]

I think if the text messages were pertinent to the state's narrative they would have presented them. There was a lot of data evidence and a good number of witnesses. Given that there is more evidence that we are aware of from the info in the press I think there was a consensus in the prosecutor's office of what to use and what not to use. The state put together their narrative and I am sure they used everything available that they felt would support it.

So text messages that contribute to the "definitely lured her" theory were discarded over the content of 2 phone calls, 1 of which was made by Heather, that can't be verified?

 

[barcode]

So text messages that contribute to the "definitely lured her" theory were discarded over the content of 2 phone calls, 1 of which was made by Heather, that can't be verified?

I know the text messages are up for debate as to whether or not they exist, or if it was just poor reporting, I suggest they do in fact exist, especially when one takes into accounts of who the participants are. It is a no brainer for me the HE was busy sending off texts in between her 16 calls.


Here I go like a presidential candidate, back peddling, It would not surprise that possibly texts were exchanged or sent, BUT if they were and why they were not introduced in court befuddles me.

 

[jillycat]

I know the text messages are up for debate as to whether or not they exist, or if it was just poor reporting, I suggest they do in fact exist, especially when one takes into accounts of who the participants are. It is a no brainer for me the HE was busy sending off texts in between her 16 calls.

Yes, I'm just saying that if there are texts and there is luring evidence as the article indicates that Livesay claimed, I find it hard to believe that the state would exclude them. But I suspect that if there are in fact texts, they weren't helpful to the luring theory.

 

[kimi_SFC]

Solicitor: Sidney Moorer case will go to trial again
From staff reports 13 hrs ago

Prosecutors plan to take Sidney Moorer to trial again.

Jurors deadlocked Friday in the case against Moorer, with 10 believing him guilty of kidnapping Heather Elvis and two insisting he was innocent.

Judge Markley Dennis declared a mistrial, leaving the decision to pursue a second trial in the hands of Solicitor Jimmy Richardson.

“We’ll retry the case,” Richardson said. “Hopefully sooner rather than later.”

The solicitor said he’d like to see Moorer in court again this summer, but a trial date hasn’t been set.

[…]

[...]

“If you believe my client wanted to kidnap Heather Elvis because she was pregnant, then you have to believe I’ve been sitting next to the devil,” he said.
[...]

:thinking:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LBDunes]

[QUOTE=barcode;12665956]I know the text messages are up for debate as to whether or not they exist, or if it was just poor reporting, I suggest they do in fact exist, especially when one takes into accounts of who the participants are. It is a no brainer for me the HE was busy sending off texts in between her 16 calls.


Here I go like a presidential candidate, back peddling, It would not surprise that possibly texts were exchanged or sent, BUT if they were and why they were not introduced in court befuddles me.[/QUOTE]

On the text message debate, I personally opt for the poor reporting, for 2 reasons. First, if any text messages were that incriminating, I cannot imagine they would not have been used. Second, that report came from MYHorryNews which from my observation had a lot of sloppy reporting on this case. They always seemed to want to be first with stories on the case and they would have to come back and update and edit their stories pretty much every time. And of course the one time they removed a story. It vanished without explanation.

 

[Madeleine74]

Yeah but it goes away just as easily if all he wanted was to invite her to meet him and everything goes south from there.

How would it go south that someone else associated with SM (say, his wife, for instance) just so happened to decide to harm Heather? He's still responsible.

Unless you're suggesting that SM merely invited her out and some random stranger, someone not at all connected with SM, coincidentally happened to decide to take Heather that very morning?